Re: Non-Exec stack patches

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:01:14 -0800, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

  Uli> David Mosberger wrote:
  >> What stack protections other than RW- and RWX are useful?

  Uli> It's not about "what protections".  The three currently
  Uli> recognized states are PT_GNU_STACK not present, rwx, rw-.
  Uli> Ingo's code documents this.  For those who need more, I'll have
  Uli> a paper coming up for a conference in Toronto in April.

I'd find the PT_GNU_STACK approach much more appealing if it actually
was used to get rid of the stack-special case in the kernel
altogether.  Certainly it seems like it could be used to get rid of
STACK_TOP (just use the segment's p_vaddr).  That would still leave
the TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE special-case, but at least it would be a step
in the right direction.  Also, in the case of ia64, p_memsz could be
used to give user-level control over whether they want the
register/memory stacks to grow towards each other or apart from each
other.

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/